The Rendering and the Reality at Design Observer. Michael Bierut ponders on the role of computer-generated rendering in architecture. 'Architects have a real challenge. They have to make people believe in – and accept, and support, and pay for – a reality that lies far in the future.'

Bierut goes on to comment that 'In my experience, architects themselves often prefer much more esoteric means of presentation -- sketches, diagrams, collages -- to the literalness and hyperbole of flashy "realistic" renderings. It's clients who prefer the surefire drama of the latter -- especially when the work has to be put before the mass public, who are thought to have little tolerance for ambiguity.'

(Another comment from the discussion that got me thinking: '[Commercial radio stations] play their songs just a bit faster to squeeze a few more in an hour... the end result is, in addition to more ads, a more hyper sound.' Is this true?]

What is ugly? Why do some people find a building hideous and oppressive, while others think the same structure is wonderful? This is the great divide at the heart of not just the architectural conservation movement, but with all other aspects of architectural culture.

The old school modernist (as was) would say that education is the key, and that people can be 'educated' to like things they might not otherwise appreciate - once they have a better understanding perhaps of the social, theoretical and technical ambitions behind a project they will suddenly appreciate it more. This is typical modernist determinism, old school socialist-style 'we know what's best for you'.

This isn't a terribly fashionable approach, but like all things unfashionable, it contains a grain of truth. My own appreciation of modern architecture was changed immeasurably by a teacher who was passionate about contemporary design and took the trouble - in the face of apathetic and unappreciative pupils - to show image after image of the great works of twentieth century architecture, explaining each, setting it in context and showing why it was so important and why, in his opinion, it was attractive.

Ultimately, to assume that each individual human being perceives 'beauty' in exactly the same way is clearly wrong, and the same must be true of ugliness. Art, music, literature, all have works or movements that are perceived as 'difficult', yet are simultaneously described as sublime. Are we reaching a cultural impasse? I've learnt to not be upset, for example, when someone says that they find the National Theatre utterly repellent, when I think it's one of the most beautiful buildings in London. But how can such conflicting views co-exits? Surely the building can't embody great beauty and unspeakable ugliness at the same time?

*

Other things. Viceland's do's and don'ts of photography is predictably caustic. A don't: Vacation Photography 'Of all the sterling silver that is dug up in the world by underpaid, zombified miners, the largest percentage goes to making film (true). So, even though the swimming pool at the Chateau Shamrock was in the shape of a shamrock, no one needs to see the whole roll of film you went through on it. You just wasted what some poor Mexican lost three fingers digging up.'